You were the one who taught me how to dice onions
without crying, how to hold the blade at just the right angle,
your hands steady over mine that summer evening
in your kitchen, jazz playing from the radio.
Now I understand: you were teaching me
about precision, about the clean slice
of betrayal, how it parts flesh from bone
without seeming to leave a mark.

When I found out, I was cutting carrots
for the soup I planned to bring you,
orange coins falling like the promises
we made under winter stars.
The phone buzzed with evidence:
your words to others about me,
screenshots like autopsy photos,
revealing the death of what I thought we were.

I’ve spent years learning the anatomy
of friendship ,  the ventricles of trust,
the delicate vessels of shared secrets ,
only to find you studied it too,
but as a hunter studies prey.
The knife you left in my back
has become a part of me now,
a steel vertebra I can’t remove.

Leave a comment

I used to run assays in a lab where sloppy measurement gave you garbage data. You could tell within a minute whether someone had actually looked at what was in front of them or just written down what they expected to see. Poetry about nature has the same problem. Most of it isn’t observation. It’s a checklist: buds, birdsong, a stream somewhere, spring arriving right on cue like a delivery van.

Here’s the craft lesson. Nature in a poem isn’t a subject. It’s a vehicle. You point it at whatever you’re actually trying to say, and if all you know how to do is point it at renewal, you’ll write the same poem everyone else writes. Grief, disorientation, decay, and memory are just as available to you as blossom and light. Often they’re more honest, because they’re what you actually feel when you stand in a garden that used to belong to someone who’s gone.

I want to show you three of my own poems that use nature to do something other than celebrate spring.

Returning to a Pear Tree

My grandmother's house stands without her, 
the pear tree still heavy with fruit no one will pick. 
Twenty years since I climbed its branches, 
skinned my knees, let juice run down my chin. 

The house has new windows now, strange curtains. 
I stand at the edge of the yard, trespassing on my own memory. 
What is it about loss that makes us circle back, 
as if grief were a spiral and not a straight line? 
I pick up a fallen pear, bruised but sweet, 
and bite into what's left of that life.

Look at what’s doing the work here. The pear tree doesn’t symbolise anything on its own. It’s a specific tree, in a specific yard, that still fruits even though the person who once picked its fruit is dead. The new windows and strange curtains aren’t decoration. They tell you someone else owns this now, and that ownership is what makes the speaker a trespasser on their own childhood. Then the closing image: a bruised pear, bitten anyway. That’s the whole argument of the poem. Not “I feel sad about my grandmother.” An action that shows you grief still tastes sweet if you’re willing to eat around the bruise. That’s show, not tell, and it’s the difference between a nature poem and a nature poem that’s actually about something.

Woodland Echoes

Her silky voice sharpens on my tree bark,
as my imagination finds a poem,
a way to heal this thorny halo without leaving scars.
The memories of the past begin to fade
like ninety-nine red balloons.
And ten Gallica roses, dead on their stems
embody the pain and sorrow that fills this space.
Time and place have no place in time,
only the weeping blue of a violin string.
The artist’s eye, bourbon-stained,
seems out of focus in this sombre setting.

This one takes a bigger risk. Instead of one clean image doing one clean job, it stacks tree bark against roses against a violin string against a drunk painter’s eye, and lets the natural world blur into something closer to a dissociative state than a garden. The line about balloons fading is a needle drop. It borrows a piece of shared cultural memory to mark how memory itself dissolves, and it works precisely because it’s the only pop culture reference in the poem. One is a jolt. Three would be a gimmick. The dead roses aren’t there to be pretty and sad. They’re doing the job cliché roses never do, which is standing in for something specific that has already died, off the page, before the poem started.

Try this

Pick one natural image you’ve been trained to associate with a single emotion. A rose for love. A sunrise for hope. A river for time passing. Now write six lines about that image at the exact moment it fails to deliver on that promise. The rose is dying. The sunrise never comes because of cloud cover. The river is dry. Use three concrete sensory details. No abstract emotion words allowed: no “sad,” no “loss,” no “beautiful.” Let the image carry it.

Reply with your six lines. I’ll read them.

Last moments of the Rose

A withered garland, black with dread,
each petal decomposing in the rain.
A meeting point between pristine innocence
and the veiled promise of decay.

The misted edge of hoar-frost softened soil
sees peaks collapse into a spellbinding chill,
like wefts in the weave of the skein
borrowed from the sun.

A predestined doom, the past erased,
its night at last is done.
With her heart beneath the powdered dust,
the crimson rose has faded.

This is the hardest of the three to pull off, and it’s worth breaking down why it doesn’t collapse into greeting-card gothic. The rose is the most overused flower in the English language. Love, virginity, romance, England itself. So the poem has to work twice as hard to earn a different meaning, and it does that through sustained diction rather than a single clever line.

Notice the register never slips. “Withered,” “decomposing,” “predestined doom,” “powdered dust,” “faded.” Every word choice sits in the same register of slow, formal decline. There isn’t a single soft or pretty word allowed near the rose after the first stanza. That consistency is what stops the poem from reading as sentimental. A weaker draft would sneak in something like “still beautiful even as it dies,” because that’s the instinct, to soften the blow. This version refuses. The rose gets to be a corpse. It doesn’t get redeemed at the end into a metaphor about how loss makes life meaningful. It just fades, full stop, and that refusal to comfort the reader is what makes the poem trustworthy.

There’s also a useful trick in the weaving image: “like wefts in the weave of the skein / borrowed from the sun.” It’s the one moment where the poem reaches outside the rose itself for a comparison, and it works because it’s precise about textile construction rather than vague about light. If you’re going to reach for a metaphor outside your central image, reach for something you can describe with the same specificity you’d use for the thing itself. A vague comparison (”like something borrowed from the sun”) would have undone the whole poem’s discipline.

Bonus exercise: the redemption trap

Take the six lines you wrote for the free exercise above. Read back through them and cut any line where you gave the image an escape hatch, a moment where it gets to be beautiful again or means something uplifting. Nature poems fail most often in the last line, when the writer can’t resist handing the reader a bow. Cut the bow. See what’s left. That’s usually the real poem.

Leave a comment

Share

Aurora

Fleeting are the words we say, in the stillness of a sunrise
when the winds of time stand still, and
strands of fond remembrances unwind.
On the path that leads to nowhere,
I have sometimes found my soul,
and have known precious moments
in the echoes of a song.

I will not taste the salty tears of last goodbyes,
for my yesterdays walk with me.
An innocence that once I knew
blows the tempest, and dims the pain.
Voices circle the insomniac moon,
before sound slips into silence,
and I fall to sleep inhaling fragrant bliss.

Bittersweet Memories

Ambience of what has been
still lingers in the air,
and slides along a froth of peppered mist
on icy dusk and rain-spun grass.

As tangible as wisps of smoke,
gone now, like the exhalation of the wind.
The fluttering of untried wings
echoing a thousand times.

I listen to the soft and rhythmic thrum,
under clouds whose tinged vermilion
flickers in a breeze that chills my core.
Tears have lost their salty grain
…….and more

Flowers May Pass

I held this flower within my hand
in the harshness of winter-sleet,
and am grateful now
for that bitter, dappled day.
Memories that drink from a sleepless night,
are those wistful moments 
that now I don’t recall.
No white crosses will mark their passing

A ruined rose endures when all else fails.
A fractured stem, a melting heart; 
the difference is small.
I look upon this shattered bloom
and see a thousand arrows, 
and wonder,
is this all.

Leave a comment

A student once asked me what a poem “actually means.” I told her the honest answer, which is that I don’t fully know, and neither does the poet half the time. She looked at me like I’d admitted to faking a chemistry result.

Here’s the thing about interpretation. In science, ambiguity is a problem to be solved. You run the experiment again until you get a clean result. In poetry, ambiguity is often the result. A poem that lands the same way for everyone isn’t doing much. A poem that opens up three or four honest readings is doing exactly what it’s built to do.

I’m going to prove it with a poem of my own.

Here is the audio version:

The Poem

Remorse

Upon a splintered stone two names were scrawled
at dusk, as chilling winds of mourning called
and remnants of a haunted evening swelled
where demons of the fading day had dwelled

Night terrors sweat the fleece of counted sheep
that now caress the edge of tortured sleep
Black shadows stretching longer, curve and blend,
to splinter into shards beneath the bend

A voice unheard still pleads beneath the ground,
its whisper lost where guilt and grief are bound.
The mind returns to words it left unsaid,
and walks once more among the restless dead.

No candle burns to light the buried name,
no hand returns to soothe the silent shame.
Yet still the heart, in penance bent and worn,
keeps vigil for a soul it cannot mourn.

And still the stone stands watch when no one's near,
its shadow lengthening with every year,
until the names once carved begin to fade,
and take the ones who read them to their shade. 

Three Readings, All Defensible

Reading One: A specific grief. Two names on a stone. A death the speaker couldn’t face in time. The “words left unsaid” point to a real conversation that never happened, and the poem becomes an elegy for a missed goodbye.

Reading Two: Guilt over a betrayal. Read the stone as metaphor rather than headstone. The names aren’t the dead. They’re the speaker and someone they wronged, carved together by an old mistake neither can undo. The “penance” isn’t for a death. It’s for something done while both parties were still alive.

Reading Three: Mortality in general, no specific person. The poem isn’t about one grief at all. It’s about the universal dread of being forgotten, the way every name on every stone eventually fades, and the way that fading eventually claims the person standing over it too. Under this reading, the final stanza isn’t about one haunting. It’s about all of us.

Every one of those readings holds up against the text. None of them contradicts a line. That’s not me being cagey. That’s the poem working as intended.

What I Was Actually Trying to Convey

I wrote this after sitting with an old regret, one of those small, ordinary failures that never gets resolved because the moment to resolve it passes before you notice it’s passing. Not a death. Not a dramatic betrayal. Just the quiet cowardice of putting off a hard conversation until it’s too late to have it.

The two names on the stone were never meant to be a grave. They were meant to be a scar, something carved into memory rather than granite. Everything after that, the sheep giving way to shadows, the voice pleading underground, the stone outliving its own inscription, is what regret does to a mind that won’t let itself off the hook. The poem doesn’t resolve because that particular kind of guilt doesn’t resolve either. It just gets older and heavier, and eventually it starts to threaten the person carrying it, which is what that final stanza is doing.

That’s my answer. It’s not the only one, and here’s where I’ll say something that will annoy a few English professors.

Your Reading Is the Real One

Poetry criticism likes to talk about authorial intent like it’s a locked answer key the reader is trying to guess. I think that gets it backward. Once a poem leaves my hands, my intent is interesting trivia. It isn’t the meaning. The meaning is whatever happens in the reader’s head when the words hit them, and that reaction is just as valid as mine, because mine was never more than one person’s reaction either.

And here’s the more controversial part. I think that’s also the real test of whether a poem is good. Not whether it satisfies a critic’s checklist. Not whether it uses the “correct” symbolism. If a poem chimes with you, if it catches something you recognize and gives it a shape, it’s doing its job for you, full stop. The experts can rank it however they like. Your reaction is the data point that actually matters to your reading life.

That doesn’t mean craft doesn’t matter. Craft is what makes a poem capable of holding multiple honest readings instead of collapsing into confusion. But once the craft is doing its work, the meaning belongs to whoever’s reading it.

Try This

Read “Remorse” again, once through. Before you scroll back up to my explanation, write down one sentence: what do you think this poem is about? Don’t check it against mine. Just write it down and trust it.

Reply with your sentence. I’d rather see your reading than confirm mine.

Next week: how line breaks change what a sentence means without changing a single word.

A short craft note on why I let the ambiguity stand

The temptation in revision is to clarify. Cut the wobble, sharpen the image, make sure nobody misreads you. I fought that instinct through every draft of “Remorse.” Every time I tightened a line toward one specific reading, the poem got smaller. “Two names” stayed vague on purpose. “A soul it cannot mourn” stayed unclear about whose soul, and whose failure to mourn, on purpose. The vagueness isn’t laziness. It’s structural. If you want a poem that survives more than one reading, you have to resist explaining it to death in the writing itself.

Leave a comment

Give a class the prompt “write about twilight” and watch what happens. Half the room reaches for purple. Amber skies. Dying light. A sun that “bleeds” into the horizon. They over-describe the sky because they think the sky is the assignment, and the poem ends up telling you it’s beautiful instead of showing you why you’d care.

Here’s the fix, and it’s simpler than it sounds. The weather doesn’t have to be the subject. It can just be the room the subject happens in.

The Craft Lesson

Nature and weather are some of the most overused subjects in poetry, and also some of the most useful, once you stop treating them as the point. A season, a sky, a stretch of rain, these work best as a frame around a human moment rather than as the moment itself. The poet’s actual job is to notice what’s happening inside that frame. Contentment. Grief. Boredom. Whatever the real subject is, the twilight just has to hold still long enough for you to see it.

The tell that a nature poem has gone wrong is over-explanation. Extra adjectives stacked on the sunset. A closing line that spells out the mood in case you missed it. Show, don’t tell, is old advice, but it gets ignored constantly with weather poems specifically, because the sky feels like it deserves the whole poem’s attention. It doesn’t. It deserves a few precise details and then the door held open for the real subject to walk in.

Here’s a poem of mine that tries to do exactly that.

The Poem

Twilight

Here I sit among the long grasses
to watch the round sky,
where sun and moon rise
and rest, beneath the gold light
of both their beams.

I have smelled the heady scent
where the peace of green abides
Deep orange haze in a warm place,
and visions of dark slate-grey

There is no more I need to know.
The rain has passed,
the painting is now finished,
the artist has done.

The Breakdown

Twilight shows up in this poem, but it never becomes the subject. Look at how little space it actually gets. One image of sun and moon sharing the sky. One line of orange haze fading toward slate-grey. That’s it. That’s the entire weather report.

Everything else is doing different work. “The peace of green abides” isn’t a description of a field. It’s a state of mind borrowed from a field. “There is no more I need to know” has nothing to do with the sky at all. It’s a line about being done searching, about a mind that’s finally stopped reaching for the next thing. The real subject of this poem is contentment, the particular kind that shows up when a person stops needing an explanation for anything.

Then there’s the closing move, which is the one I’d point to if you only had time to study one thing in this poem. “The painting is now finished, the artist has done.” Twilight gets reframed, in the last two lines, as something already completed rather than something still happening. That’s not a fact about the sky. The sky doesn’t finish. It’s a fact about the speaker, who has reached a point of acceptance and is borrowing the closing light to say so.

Notice what isn’t in this poem. No wind. No birdsong. No metaphor comparing the sunset to a wound or a wedding dress. The twilight gets exactly as much detail as it needs to set the scene, and not one image more. That restraint is what lets the real subject, a mind settling into stillness, come through without competition.

Try This

Pick any piece of weather or season. Write four lines that use it only as a backdrop, never as the subject. Somewhere in those four lines, name the actual thing you’re writing about (a feeling, a decision, a memory) using no more than one weather image to hold it. If you find yourself describing the sky for its own sake, cut it and ask what the sky is standing in for.

Reply with your four lines. I want to see what you’re really writing about underneath the weather.

Next week: how a single well-placed line break can carry more meaning than an entire stanza of explanation.

Read more

Returning to a Pear Tree

The Scent of a Childhood Home

Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

My grandmother's house stands without her, 
the pear tree still heavy with fruit no one will pick. 
Twenty years since I climbed its branches, 
skinned my knees, let juice run down my chin. 

The house has new windows now, strange curtains. 
I stand at the edge of the yard, trespassing on my own memory. 
What is it about loss that makes us circle back, 
as if grief were a spiral and not a straight line? 
I pick up a fallen pear, bruised but sweet, 
and bite into what's left of that life.

Inventory of Absence

Objects Left Behind After Death

Isn't it something how his reading glasses 
still hold the shape of his temples,
 a slight bend where he'd remove them 
each night before sleep, 
how they rest on the nightstand 
like they're waiting for hands that won't return? 

And the garden gloves, stiffened with soil, 
thumbs pointed skyward 
as if hitch-hiking to wherever he's gone. 
The mailbox still receives letters with his name, 
the chair at the table still holds the impression of his weight. 
Is there a word for this tenderness 
toward the things that outlive us? 
For how they become both more and less than they were? 
For how they carry on without us, 
bearing witness to our vanishing act, 
our spectacular disappearance?

Alternative Cartographies
Roads Not Taken

At night, I draw maps of the lives I didn't choose. 
Here: the apartment in Prague 
where I might have learned to roll my r's properly, 
might have fallen in love with a violinist.
 Here: the children I didn't have, 
their faces blurred like photographs taken while running.
 
My mother says I was always leaving, 
even as a child,
my body a door 
constantly opening. 

What is regret but another form of imagination? 
In Vietnamese, the word for missing someone 
suggests a cord stretched between bodies. 
Look how far it reaches,
across oceans, across decades, 
across all possible worlds 
where I am not who I became. 

Let me show you 
how beautiful the other sides 
of my life might have been. 
Let me trace them with my finger 
until they feel real.

Leave a comment

Here’s a sentence from grandmother’s garden: the roses bloomed copper-red in summer. Nothing sinister about it. Now here’s the same vocabulary, three lines later, doing something else entirely: petals of flame that bloom and die in seconds. Same verb. Same noun family. Completely different weather system underneath it.

That’s the whole trick of this week’s poem, and it’s a trick worth stealing.

The craft lesson

Most poems about pain reach for new words to describe it: raw, shattered, hollow. This poem does the opposite. It picks one image system, a grandmother’s garden, and refuses to leave it. Every image the poem needs for addiction gets built out of gardening vocabulary instead. A spoon becomes a flowerpot. Track marks become constellations. Collapsed veins become thorns. The poem never once uses the word “addiction.” It doesn’t need to. The garden does the confessing.

This is called a controlling metaphor: one image system that runs the entire poem and gets forced to carry meanings it was never built for. The tension between what the image originally meant and what it’s now being asked to mean is where the emotion lives. You don’t tell the reader it hurts. You show them a rose bush that’s been replaced by something that looks almost like a rose bush, and let the “almost” do the work.

The poem

Desert Flowers A study on heroin addiction (in the style of Natalie Diaz)

Grandmother’s roses bloomed copper-red in summer, but my flowers grow in aluminum spoons, petals of flame that bloom and die in seconds. I used to count days by sunrises. Now I count them by track marks, tiny constellations mapping my surrender.

The desert taught me that beautiful things can grow in the harshest places. My body is a desert now, and these flowers - they’re killing all the native plants.

In grandmother’s garden, even the thorns had purpose: protection, warning, the price of touching beautiful things. These new thorns write their own story in collapsed veins and broken promises. The prick of the needle is both love and betrayal.

Each hit is a prayer to a god who only knows how to take. I dream of scorpions swimming through my bloodstream, their poison less potent than my daily medicine.

The saguaros can live a hundred years without rain, surviving on hoarded water and patience. But I am burning through my reserves, watching the sun bleach clean the bones of what I used to be. At night, I press my ear to the earth, listening for the sound of roots struggling through sand. Grandmother said every flower knows its season.

What season is this, when blooming means burning? When the petals fall like ash, and every garden becomes a graveyard? Still, something grows in this wasteland. Hope, maybe. Or hunger. Both feel the same in the dark.

Breakdown

The substitution game. Look at how methodically the garden gets replaced, piece by piece. Spoon for flowerpot. Constellations for track marks. Thorns for collapsed veins. Once you notice the pattern, you can’t stop seeing it, and that’s deliberate. The poem is training you to read its private code, the same way the speaker has had to learn a new vocabulary for a body that no longer works the way grandmother’s garden did.

Inherited safety turned into inherited danger. “In grandmother’s garden, even the thorns had purpose: protection, warning.” That’s a safe world. Thorns keep you out for your own good. Then: “These new thorns write their own story in collapsed veins and broken promises.” Same word, same sentence shape, opposite function. Protection has become injury.

The poem doesn’t announce this shift. It just lets the word “thorns” do two jobs and trusts you to feel the gap between them.

Verbs that keep everything physical. Bloom, die, count, map, burn, bleach, listen. Every one of these is a body doing something, not a feeling being named. “Watching the sun bleach clean the bones of what I used to be” is a sentence about sunlight and bone, and it still lands as despair, because the poem has spent thirty lines teaching you what bleached bone means in this particular desert.

The saguaro as accusation. The cactus survives a hundred years on hoarded water and patience. The speaker is burning through reserves at the opposite rate. That contrast does something a direct statement never could: it makes the speaker’s collapse look like a violation of a law the desert itself obeys. Even the landscape knows how to last. She doesn’t.

Refusing the clean ending. “Hope, maybe. Or hunger. Both feel the same in the dark.” Most poems about addiction want to land somewhere: despair, or redemption, or at least clarity. This one ends on a poem that can’t tell its own hope from its own hunger, which is a more honest description of what craving actually feels like from the inside than any single named emotion would be.

Try this

Pick a place or memory that used to mean safety for you: a kitchen, a garden, a grandparent’s house, a specific route you used to walk. List five concrete objects from that place. Now write six lines describing a current struggle using only those five objects and nothing else. Don’t name the feeling. Let the objects carry it.

Audio note

I’ve recorded a reading of this one below. The pauses do some of the work the line breaks are doing on the page, particularly in that last stanza, where the poem is genuinely unsure of itself.

One next thing to explore: how a line break can work like a held breath.

Reply with your five objects, or the six lines if you write them. I read everything.

Here is the audio:

Leave a comment

Somewhere on your hard drive, or in a notebook with a cracked spine, or in a folder you’ve named something evasive like “misc” or “old stuff,” there is a poem you are ashamed of. You wrote it badly. You know it’s badly written. It tries too hard in the wrong places, it collapses in the middle, it has a line in it that makes you wince every time you accidentally think of it.

That poem is more valuable to you right now than anything else you’ve written.

I don’t mean it’s secretly good. It probably isn’t. I’m not about to tell you that your rough drafts are diamonds waiting to be polished, because that kind of encouragement is the literary equivalent of a participation trophy, and you deserve better. What I am saying is that the poem you’re most embarrassed by contains information about you as a writer that your polished, successful poems have carefully hidden.

The failure is the data.

When a poem goes wrong, it doesn’t go wrong randomly. It goes wrong in the specific ways that your instincts, your habits, your fears and your blind spots produce. The poem that overreaches emotionally in the final stanza is telling you something about how you handle endings. The poem that starts brilliantly and then loses its nerve halfway through is showing you where your confidence runs out. The poem full of borrowed phrases and safe images is a map of the places where you stopped trusting your own perception and reached for something pre-approved.

None of that is visible in the poems that work. A poem that succeeds conceals its own process. Reading your best work tells you almost nothing about how you write. Reading your worst tells you almost everything.

Back when I was doing research, we had a principle: a failed experiment is still an experiment. The result is just a different kind of result. You don’t throw it away. You write it up, you look at what it’s telling you, and then you design the next experiment to test what you’ve learned. The failed poem works the same way. The question isn’t “why is this bad?” The question is “what exactly went wrong, and why did I let it?”

So here’s what I want you to do.

Find the poem. The one you’ve been avoiding. Read it without flinching, if you can manage it. Then ask three questions.

Where did I lose control of this? There will be a moment in the poem where the language shifts, where you can feel the writer starting to panic or overcompensate. The lines get longer. The adjectives multiply. The abstractions appear. Mark that spot.

What was I trying to say at that exact point? Not what you wrote. What you were reaching for underneath the words that came out. There’s usually something real there, something you actually wanted to get on the page, that the poem wasn’t equipped to carry.

Why didn’t I trust it? This is the hard one. Sometimes the poem went wrong because you got tired. But often it went wrong because you got scared. The real thing was too raw, too specific, too strange, and you covered it up with something more presentable.

The answers to those three questions are your next poem. Not a revision of the failed one. A new poem, built from what you now know.

The poets who grow fastest are the ones who can read their failures as honestly as they read their successes. Most of us do the opposite. We study the poems that worked, trying to repeat whatever we did right. But we can’t repeat it because we don’t fully understand it. We got lucky, and luck doesn’t teach you much.

The failed poem, examined properly, teaches you exactly where your writing actually lives versus where you wish it did. That gap is where the work is.

Go find the poem. Read it. Be honest about it. Then write the one it was trying to be.

Try This

Pull out the poem you like least from the last twelve months. Read it once, quickly. Then read it again and underline the moment where you feel it stop working. Write one sentence, just for yourself, about what you think you were trying to say at that moment. Don’t revise the poem. Write a new piece of ten lines that starts exactly where the old one failed.

Next week: what your first line is actually promising, and the contract you don’t know you’re making with your reader.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Read more

Picture the scene. You mention, at some literary gathering, that you’ve been reading Mary Oliver and you find her work genuinely moving. The person across from you doesn’t say anything immediately. They just do a slow blink. The kind of blink that says: I have decided you are intellectually beneath me, but I’m going to be very gracious about it.

“Mary Oliver,” they say, as if reading the name off a menu they’ve already decided is beneath them. “She’s very... accessible, isn’t she.”

And there it is. The velvet rope, lowered in front of your face.

Poetry has a bouncer problem. Not the poems themselves. The people who’ve appointed themselves the poems’ permanent security detail.

You know the type. They populate workshops, faculty lounges and the comments sections of literary journals that have twelve subscribers and a very strong sense of their own importance. They’ve decided that poetry belongs to a specific club, the entry requirements are steep, and they are personally responsible for enforcing the door policy.

Their criteria are baffling. Difficulty is the main one. If someone can read your poem and understand it without a glossary and three years of postgraduate study, you’ve basically written a jingle. Accessibility is the insult they reach for when they can’t find a real one.

The obscurity Olympics run strong in these circles. There’s a particular move where someone name-drops a poet you’ve never heard of and then watches your face for signs of inadequacy. “Have you encountered Forrest Gander’s more recent sequences? No? Ah.” They collect obscure names the way some people collect receipts. Pointless, but it gives them something to do with their hands.

And God forbid you write about happiness. Or love that doesn’t end badly. Or the natural world without immediately invoking ecological catastrophe. Apparently joy is the artistic equivalent of turning up to a marathon in flip-flops. You can do it, but people will talk.

Workshop culture is where a lot of this damage gets done. There are workshop leaders who approach a student’s poem the way a CSI tech approaches a crime scene. Gloves on, mouth tight, looking for evidence of insufficient suffering. They’ll tell you the speaker’s voice “lacks destabilization.” They’ll suggest your imagery “fails to interrogate its own assumptions.” They’ll send you home wondering if writing about your dead father was somehow too on-the-nose.

Here’s what I think is actually going on.

If poetry becomes genuinely popular, if people start reading it on their phones and finding it useful and sharing it with friends, then the people who built their entire sense of self on being the Chosen Few Who Understand Poetry will have a serious identity crisis on their hands. The velvet rope isn’t about standards. It’s about scarcity. Make the thing rare enough and you get to feel special for owning it.

They’ve spent years constructing the idea that difficulty equals depth and confusion equals sophistication. If a clear, direct poem moves someone to tears on the bus, that challenges the whole architecture. So they have to call it pedestrian. They have to call it minor. They have to call it, with that particular tone, accessible.

The damage this does is real and it compounds. People who might love poetry are told, explicitly or by cold implication, that poetry isn’t for them. Writers with genuinely interesting voices sand them down to sound more “serious,” more “destabilized,” more like the workshop consensus of what a poem is supposed to be. Entire generations apologize for their reading preferences before they’ve even finished the sentence.

I spent years in research biochemistry before I wrote poems seriously. Precision matters in both fields. But in science, if your explanation is so complicated that no other scientist can follow it, that’s a failure. You haven’t demonstrated mastery. You’ve demonstrated an inability to communicate. The same applies to poems.

Clarity is hard. Much harder than obscurity. Anyone can be confusing. Making something crystalline and true takes real work. The people who dismiss accessible poetry as lesser haven’t tried hard enough to write it.

Rupi Kaur sells millions of books and is dismissed by the gatekeepers as too simple. Billy Collins was US Poet Laureate and is treated by certain corners of the literary world as a guilty pleasure, too popular to be properly serious. Instagram poetry is written off wholesale, despite the fact that it’s bringing more people to the form than any poetry journal has managed in decades.

Meanwhile the poetry that gets celebrated in those journals is often read by fewer people than attend a mid-sized church fete. There’s something wrong with a definition of success that requires a near-total absence of readers.

None of this means all poems are equally good. Some poems are better than others. Craft matters. Choices matter. There are things a poem can do that are harder and more interesting than things a poem can do easily, and the difference is worth discussing.

But that’s a conversation about the work. The gatekeepers aren’t having that conversation. They’re having a conversation about who deserves to be in the room.

Those are very different things. One builds something. The other just maintains a list.

Poetry is old enough and strong enough to survive popularity. It survived being carved into stone tablets. It survived being sung by people who couldn’t read. It survived being performed in pubs and prisons and public squares long before anyone had a MFA to their name. It’ll survive a few million Instagram followers.

Put the clipboard down. Let people in.

Are you a recovering poetry snob, or have you been on the receiving end of the velvet rope treatment? Tell me in the comments. I’ve got time and no agenda.

Leave a comment

You’ve done it. You’ve written a line that actually says the thing - the uncomfortable, specific, true thing. And then, three words later, you softened it. You explained it. You walked it back.

That retreat is one of the most common craft problems I see in developing poets. Not weak imagery. Not poor line breaks. It’s the flinch. The poem got close to something real and then lost its nerve.

What Flinching Looks Like

Here’s a made-up example of a strong line followed by a flinch:

I hate them for leaving though I know they had no choice

The first line is alive. The second line is the poet patting the reader on the shoulder and saying “don’t worry, I don’t really mean that.” The tension collapses. The reader, who was leaning in, sits back.

Flinching takes several forms. The explanatory retreat, like the example above. The softening qualifier - “in some ways,” “perhaps,” “a little.” The pivot to reassurance, where the poem suddenly finds its lesson or its silver lining just when it was getting interesting. And the most common one: the over-explained metaphor, where the poet states the image and then tells you what it means, because they didn’t trust you to get it.

Every one of these is the same instinct. The poem got uncomfortable, and the poet blinked.

Why It Happens

Two reasons, mostly.

The first is the fear of seeming self-pitying or melodramatic. Poets, especially those who’ve been through a workshop or two, learn very quickly that sentimentality is the enemy. So they correct for it. Hard. They introduce irony when the poem doesn’t need it. They undercut emotion the moment it arrives.

The second is the impulse to be fair. To show the reader they’ve considered all sides. To acknowledge the complexity. This sounds reasonable. In an essay, it is reasonable. In a poem, it’s usually a way of avoiding the thing you actually came to say.

Poems are allowed to be unfair. That’s half of what makes them interesting.

What Holding the Nerve Looks Like

Here’s the last stanza of my poem “Grudge Notes to the Grave”:

They’re not gone, not really - they’re the static on the radio the shadow that ducks out of sight I hate them for leaving love them for staying and bury them again every damn day in the dirt of my own stubborn memory

Notice what isn’t there. No explanation of why hating and loving someone at the same time is understandable. No softening phrase. No acknowledgment that grief is complicated, which it obviously is, and which the poem doesn’t need to say because it just showed you. The contradiction sits there, unresolved, because that’s exactly what grief feels like from the inside.

The poem could have ended with something redemptive, a line about love outlasting loss, or time bringing clarity. That would be a flinch. Instead it ends on “stubborn memory,” which doesn’t offer comfort, doesn’t wrap anything up, and is therefore true.

Now look at an earlier moment in the same poem, where the same restraint does a different kind of work:

I mourn them in fragments now a recipe I can’t nail a sweater I won’t wear a joke I laugh at alone

Four lines. Three specific objects. No sentence that says “grief is made up of small, ordinary things.” The poem doesn’t explain itself. It trusts the objects to carry the weight, because they do.

The Test

When you finish a draft, read it looking for this specific thing: every place where the poem adds a line that wasn’t necessary. Ask, for each one, whether it’s doing new work - or whether it’s the poet insuring against misunderstanding.

If the line is there because you’re afraid of being misread, cut it.

If the line is there because you don’t quite trust the image above it, cut it and fix the image.

If the line is there to soften a claim that should be hard, cut it and let the claim stand.

The poem you’re left with will feel more exposed. That’s the point. A poem that feels safe to its author usually feels forgettable to its reader.

Try This

Take a poem you’ve already drafted, anything, even something old. Find the moment where the temperature drops: where the poem was heading somewhere and then backed off. It’ll usually be a line that begins with “though,” “perhaps,” “in some ways,” “but I know,” or “still, I understand.”

Cut it. Read the poem without it. Notice whether the poem got better or worse.

Nine times out of ten, it got better. The one time it didn’t, you’ll know immediately, and that’s useful information too.

If you want to go further: try writing a new four-to-six line poem about something you feel ambivalent or conflicted about, and deliberately refuse yourself any qualifying language. No “perhaps.” No “in some ways.” No resolution at the end. Just the contradiction, held.

Reply with a line or two if you try it. I’d genuinely like to see what happens.

One more thing - if you tried the exercise above and found that most of your poems have this problem in the early drafts, that might be a sign you’re still working out your relationship with the material before you write, not during.

The Poet’s Ignition Kit was built for exactly that stage. It’s a set of prompts, exercises, and structural templates designed to get you past the blank page and into drafts that have some heat in them from the start — which makes the flinch easier to spot and cut later.

It’s £7 / $9. No upsell, no course. Just the tools.

Get The Poets Ignition Kit

Next week: a poem of mine pulled apart stanza by stanza - the decisions behind it, and the ones I got wrong.

Leave a comment

Here’s what happens when most poets try to write imagery: they describe exactly what they see, exactly as they see it. The sunset is orange and beautiful. The rain is wet and sad. The flower is delicate and meaningful. And readers nod politely and forget the poem five minutes later.

But what if I told you that the most memorable images in poetry are the ones that seem slightly “wrong” at first glance? The ones that make you stop and think, “Wait, what?” before you realize they’re absolutely perfect?

Great imagery doesn’t just show us what something looks like - it shows us what something feels like by connecting it to something completely unexpected. It’s the difference between taking a photograph and creating a double exposure that reveals hidden truths.

Poetry Genius is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

WHY SAFE IMAGERY DOESN’T STICK

Most poets play it safe with imagery because they’re afraid of confusing readers. They stick to connections that make immediate sense: love equals roses, sadness equals rain, anger equals fire. These aren’t wrong, but they’re worn smooth by overuse.

Safe imagery is like background music, pleasant enough, but it doesn’t demand attention. It doesn’t create new neural pathways in the reader’s brain. It doesn’t force anyone to see the world differently.

The problem isn’t that these images are bad; it’s that they’re too familiar to surprise us. And surprise is where the magic happens.

THE POWER OF PRODUCTIVE COLLISION

The best imagery creates what I call “productive collision”, when two seemingly unrelated things crash into each other and create sparks of new meaning. Think of it like mixing unexpected ingredients that somehow create a perfect dish.

Consider how Ted Hughes describes a hawk: “My eye has permitted no change. / I am going to keep things like this.” He doesn’t describe the bird’s appearance; he gives us its mindset in human terms. The collision between predator and philosopher creates something entirely new.

Or Anne Carson comparing the pain of jealousy to “a piece of burnt meat / waving from a skewer.” The image is almost absurd until you realize it captures both the specific quality of emotional pain and the way it’s displayed for everyone to see.

TECHNIQUES FOR CREATING POWERFUL COLLISIONS

Cross Sensory Boundaries Don’t just describe how things look. What does loneliness sound like? What does happiness smell like? What does a memory feel like against your skin? Mixing senses creates immediate strangeness that can reveal emotional truths.

Borrow from Unexpected Contexts Take language from one world and apply it to another. Describe a relationship using medical terminology, or a landscape using economic language. The friction between contexts creates meaning.

Find the Human in the Inhuman Give abstract concepts or inanimate objects human characteristics, but not the obvious ones. Don’t make the wind whisper; maybe make it “clear its throat nervously.”

Scale Play Connect the enormous with the tiny, the cosmic with the domestic. Compare your heartbreak to the extinction of stars, or the way light moves through your kitchen to the expansion of the universe.

Time Collision Layer different time periods in a single image. Describe something modern using ancient language, or something timeless through a contemporary lens.

THE ART OF THE PERFECT STRETCH

The best surprising images aren’t random, they’re stretches that, upon reflection, feel inevitable. They make connections that seem impossible until you see them, and then you can’t unsee them.

This requires developing what I call “metaphorical intuition” - the ability to sense when two different things share some essential quality that isn’t immediately obvious.

PRACTICAL EXERCISES TO DEVELOP YOUR IMAGE-MAKING

The Unlikely Pair Exercise: Take two words from completely different categories (emotion + kitchen appliance, weather + body part, abstract concept + specific object) and find three genuine connections between them.

The Context Switch: Take a familiar scene and describe it using vocabulary from a completely different field - medical, legal, sports, cooking, etc.

The Sensory Scramble: Describe something visual using only sound words, or something you hear using only texture words.

The Time Warp: Describe a modern experience using ancient or archaic language, or an old experience through contemporary references.

WHEN STRANGE IMAGES WORK (AND WHEN THEY DON’T)

Surprising imagery works when it reveals something true about the experience you’re exploring. It fails when it’s just weird for the sake of being weird.

Ask yourself: does this strange comparison help readers understand something they couldn’t understand before? Does it illuminate some aspect of the experience that straight description would miss?

If your answer is yes, trust the strangeness. If your answer is “it sounds cool,” you might want to dig deeper.

THE FAMILIAR MADE STRANGE, THE STRANGE MADE FAMILIAR

The goal isn’t to be incomprehensible, it’s to help readers see ordinary things with fresh eyes, and to make extraordinary things feel relatable.

When you describe your grandmother’s hands as “ancient maps to countries that no longer exist,” you’re making the familiar (hands) strange (maps to lost places), which helps us understand something about age, memory, and loss that we couldn’t access through direct description.

BUILDING READER TRUST

Here’s the thing about surprising imagery: readers will follow you into strange territory if they trust that you’re leading them somewhere worthwhile. Build that trust by ensuring your surprising images serve the poem’s larger purpose.

Don’t spring weird comparisons on readers without context. Let them see your logic, even if it’s not immediately apparent. Give them enough information to make the leap with you.

THE COURAGE TO BE SPECIFIC AND STRANGE

Most poets err on the side of being too general because they think it makes their work more universal. But the opposite is true, the more specific and strange your imagery, the more likely it is to resonate with readers.

Instead of writing about “sadness,” write about “the way sadness sits in your chest like a paperweight shaped like your father’s disappointed face.” Instead of “beauty,” write about “beauty like the sound of glass breaking in reverse.”

Trust that if you capture the precise texture of your experience, even through strange comparisons, readers will recognize something true about their own lives.

Remember: your job isn’t to make everything immediately clear. Your job is to make everything eventually meaningful. Sometimes the best way to do that is to take readers on a scenic route through unexpected territory.

Poetry Genius is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Now, for our paid subscribers, here is a little bonus:

Read more

Let’s talk about this problem that haunts the dreams of many a free verse poet.

You’ve ditched the da-DUM da-DUM of iambic pentameter, you’ve waved goodbye to AABB rhyme schemes, and you’re feeling… well, a bit flat. Your poems have Great Ideas™ and Stunning Images™, but sonically? They sometimes have all the verve of a legal disclaimer read aloud by a particularly unenthusiastic sloth.

Fear not!

Free verse doesn’t mean your poem has to sound like prose that just got awkwardly chopped up. It simply means you’re trading one set of musical tools for another, often more subtle, set. It’s time to jazz up your lines and make your free verse sing, even if it’s more Coltrane than nursery rhyme.

More Than Just Words: Making Your Free Verse Sing (Without Obvious Rhyme)

So, your free verse poem feels a bit… beige? Like it’s wearing sensible shoes and talking about the weather? Let’s inject some sonic soul!

1. The Triple Threat: Assonance, Consonance, & Alliteration (The A-C-A of Awesome)

   • What they are: These are the OG sound-tweakers.

     • Assonance: Repetition of vowel sounds within words (e.g., “the rain in Spain” – okay, a bit obvious, but think “light fire” or “sleek beast”).

     • Consonance: Repetition of consonant sounds within or at the end of words (e.g., “the black truck stuck,” or more subtly, “all**’s well that ends well“).

     • Alliteration: Repetition of initial consonant sounds (e.g., “Sally sells seashells,” or the more poetic “deep dreaming”).

   • The Genius Tip: Don’t just sprinkle these in like poetic glitter. Use them strategically. Want to create a soft, flowing mood? Lean into liquid ‘l’s and soft ‘s’ sounds. Need something harsh and abrupt? Go for hard ‘k’s and ‘t’s. Let the sounds reinforce your meaning, not just decorate it. Think of it less as bling and more as a carefully chosen accent that pulls the whole outfit together.

2. The Sneaky Rhymes: Internal & Slant Rhymes

   • What they are: These are the shy cousins of end rhyme, but oh-so-effective.

     • Internal Rhyme: A word within a line rhymes with another word in the same line or a nearby line (e.g., “The rain mainly fell on the plain“ or “I bring fresh showers for the thirsting flowers“).

     • Slant Rhyme (or Near Rhyme/Half Rhyme): Words that almost rhyme, sharing similar but not identical sounds (e.g., shape/keep, worm/swarm, dizzy/easy).

   • The Genius Tip: Internal rhymes can create a lovely, unexpected chime, linking ideas sonically. Slant rhymes are fantastic for a more modern, less “sing-songy” feel. They offer a sense of connection and closure without the full, sometimes cloying, satisfaction of a perfect rhyme. It’s like a knowing wink instead of a full-on hug.

3. The Music of How You Say It: Syntax as Rhythm Section

   • What it is: The way you structure your sentences is pure musical potential.

     • Parallel Structure: Repeating a grammatical structure (”We came, we saw, we conquered.” Or “The wind howled, the rain lashed, the dog snored.”).

     • Anaphora: Repeating a word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses or lines (”I have a dream that one day... I have a dream that my four little children...”).

     • Epistrophe: Repeating a word or phrase at the end of successive clauses or lines (”...government of the people, by the people, for the people...”).

   • The Genius Tip: These aren’t just fancy grammar terms; they’re your rhythm section! Anaphora can build incredible momentum and emphasis. Parallelism creates a pleasing, balanced cadence. Use them to create patterns, build intensity, or offer a soothing regularity. It’s like a good drumbeat – you feel it even if you can’t name every part of the kit.

4. Pace Yourself: Varying Line & Sentence Length

   • What it is: Pretty straightforward: mixing up short, punchy lines/sentences with longer, more flowing ones.

   • The Genius Tip: Short lines create emphasis, speed, or a feeling of fragmentation.

     • Stop.

     • Listen.

     • Now.
       Longer, enjambed lines (where the thought runs over the line break) can create a sense of breathlessness, continuity, or expansive thought. Think about how a composer uses rests and long notes. You’re doing the same with words and silence (the white space).

5. The “Mouthfeel”: Words You Can Almost Taste (or Chew)

   • What it is: Some words just feel different in the mouth. Plosives (b, p, d, t, k, g) are almost percussive. Fricatives (f, v, s, z, th) can hiss or hum. Liquids (l, r) flow.

   • The Genius Tip: Pay attention to how words physically feel to say. If you’re writing about something jagged and broken, maybe “splintered,” “cracked,” and “bitter” with their hard consonants will serve you better than “smooth,” “flowing,” “ease.” This isn’t voodoo; it’s subtle phonetics at play, and it adds another layer to the reader’s (often subconscious) experience.

6. The Grand Unifier: Sound Echoing Sense (and Mood)

   • What it is: This is where all the above tools come together. The ultimate goal is for the sound of your poem to support and amplify its meaning and emotional tone.

   • The Genius Tip: If your poem is about a gentle stream, are your sounds predominantly soft, flowing, and liquid? If it’s about a battlefield, do you hear more harsh, percussive, or abrupt sounds? This is where the artistry truly shines. Don’t just make noise; make meaningful noise.

So, there you have it! Your free verse doesn’t need to be a silent movie. By consciously playing with these sonic elements, you can create poems that resonate on a deeper level, poems that have their own unique music, their own distinct voice. It takes practice, and a willingness to listen, really listen, to the words you choose.

Now go forth, and make some beautiful, nuanced, un-rhyming noise!

Leave a comment

The Poet’s Ignition Kit

The Cure for the Blank Page.

Waiting for the “Muse” is a waste of time.

Real poetry happens when you stop waiting and start building.

I have assembled a toolkit of starters, endings, and prompts designed to jumpstart your creative engine. Whether you are stuck on the first line or struggling to stick the landing, this kit has the mechanical tool you need.

What’s Inside:

• 🎧 The Audio Pep-Talk: “How to Start a Poem” (6 Min). Stop overthinking the opening. I walk you through the “Side Door” entrance method.

• ⚡ The Spark Decks (PDF Slides):

• 50 First Lines: Never stare at a white screen again. Pick one, write the next line, and go.

• 20 Poem Seeds: Thematic prompts to grow a poem from scratch.

• The Last Line Ghost: How to end a poem without slamming the door. The art of the “Echo.”

• 📝 The Red Pen Checklist: The printable 10-point audit to clean up your draft before you show it to the world.

Click Below to get the Poet’s Ignition Kit:

Click Here

A competition asked for poems about mental health.

Hundreds of entries, presumably, covering depression, anxiety, grief and loss in all the expected ways. Mine won. I’m going to tell you exactly why I think it did, because the answer is a craft lesson worth keeping.

The poem is called “Notes from the Maelstrom.” Read it first, then we’ll take it apart.

Reality fractures like a mirror dropped from great height,
Each shard a world unto itself, sharp-edged and treacherous.
Thoughts spiral, a dizzying carousel of distortion,
As the mind becomes a funhouse of horrors.

Shadows whisper conspiracies,
Their sibilant hisses a constant soundtrack.
Walls breathe, pulsing with malevolent life,
While the floor undulates, a sea of uncertainty.

Time stretches and contracts,
A rubber band snapping back on itself.
Seconds become eternities,
Years compressed into heartbeats.

Faces morph, features melting and reforming,
Loved ones transformed into strangers, into monsters.
Trust evaporates like morning dew,
Leaving behind a parched landscape of paranoia.

Colors scream with impossible intensity,
Assaulting senses already raw and overstimulated.
Synesthesia paints sounds in violent hues,
While tastes become visible, floating specters on the tongue.

Logic crumbles, its foundations eroded
By the acid rain of delusion.
Cause and effect become a tangled web,
Where every action triggers catastrophic consequences.

In this maelstrom of perception,
The self fragments, a kaleidoscope of personas.
Which voice is real? Which thought authentic?
Identity becomes a game of Russian roulette.

And through it all, a sliver of awareness remains,
A quiet observer watching the chaos unfold,
Knowing that this too shall pass,
But powerless to stem the tide of unreality.

As sanity slowly reasserts its dominion,
The world settles back into familiar patterns.
But the memory of madness lingers,
A specter waiting in the wings of consciousness,
Ready for its next performance.

Right. Now let's talk about what's actually happening here.

The decision that won it

Most mental health poems make the same mistake. They write about the experience from a safe distance. They describe what it looks like from outside the room.
This poem refuses to do that. It puts the reader inside the breaking mind and makes them feel the disorientation directly. That's the central craft decision, and it determined everything else.

Look at the opening: "Reality fractures like a mirror dropped from great height." That's not description. That's replication. The image itself is instantaneous, violent and irreversible, and your brain processes it the same way the subject experiences the fracture. One line, and you're already inside it.

Judges reading competition entries in a stack develop a fast instinct for what's reaching versus what's landed. A poem that puts you somewhere in the first two lines has already done something most entries haven't.


The architecture: stanza by stanza deterioration
Each stanza takes a different sensory system and breaks it. That's the structural engine, and it's doing serious work.
Stanza one: perception and thought. Stanza two: spatial reality. Stanza three: time. Stanza four: faces and trust. Stanza five: sound and taste. Stanza six: logic itself. By stanza seven, it's identity that goes.

This isn't random. The poem moves from the external world inward. From what you see, to how you process time, to who you can trust, to what you can reason, to who you even are. That's a deliberate sequence and it mirrors how acute mental disturbance actually escalates. Whether the judges named it or not, they felt the architecture holding.

The lines that did the most damage (in the good sense)
"Walls breathe, pulsing with malevolent life, / While the floor undulates, a sea of uncertainty."
This is sensory hallucination rendered precisely, without clinical distance. "Malevolent" is doing specific work there. Walls that breathe might be dreamlike. Walls that breathe with malevolent life are threatening. One word shifts the register from strange to terrifying.

"Trust evaporates like morning dew, / Leaving behind a parched landscape of paranoia."
The simile earns its place because of the contrast between morning dew (domestic, innocent, fleeting) and parched paranoia. The gap between those two images is where the emotional punch lives.
"And through it all, a sliver of awareness remains, / A quiet observer watching the chaos unfold."

This is the turn. And it's the line that separates the poem from being purely impressionistic to being about something real and human. That "sliver of awareness" is the part of the mind that hasn't gone under. The part that knows this is happening, can't stop it, and watches. That's a precise psychological observation, not a poetic flourish. Anyone who has experienced severe anxiety, dissociation or psychosis knows that witness-self. Naming it lands hard.

The craft tools in play
The poem uses extended metaphor throughout, but it doesn't lock itself to one. Each stanza introduces a fresh image system: funhouse mirrors, breathing walls, a rubber band, melting faces, acid rain. That variety keeps the reader from settling. Which is the point. You're not supposed to settle. You're supposed to feel what the subject feels.
The verbs are doing heavy lifting: fractures, spiral, whisper, undulates, morphs, crumbles, fragments. Count them. Nearly every line has an active, slightly violent verb. That's what creates forward momentum in a poem with no narrative in the traditional sense.

The one moment of formal questioning ("Which voice is real? Which thought authentic?") breaks the pattern of statement after statement. It signals the moment the speaker loses their grip on self. Questions in poems almost always signal a turn or a crisis. Used once, they hit hard. Used five times, they become a habit.

The ending as craft decision
"But the memory of madness lingers, / A specter waiting in the wings of consciousness, / Ready for its next performance."

The final image is theatrical: wings, performance. That's deliberate tonal choice. It pulls back slightly from the intensity and frames the whole experience as something that repeats, that waits, that has its own agency. The word "performance" carries a double weight. There's dark comedy in it. Mental illness as performer, waiting in the wings for its cue. It's not a healing ending. The poem doesn't pretend recovery is clean.
Judges in mental health competitions tend to distrust easy resolution. A poem that ends with "but I found the light" is usually lying. This one doesn't. That honesty is a craft choice too.

What you can take from this
Pick any experience that involves altered perception, and try writing it from inside the experience rather than describing it from outside. The rule is simple: the reader should feel it, not observe it.

One exercise worth trying: write a four-line stanza where one sensory system has gone wrong. Not "I was scared." Show the room misbehaving. Show what the body perceives. See if you can make the reader's own perception shift slightly, just for a moment.

That's the job.

Leave a comment

THE HOOK

Here’s a test. Read this opening line and notice what happens in your body:

“The house doesn’t smell like them anymore.”

Something shifts, doesn’t it? You don’t know whose house. You don’t know who them is. You don’t know if this is grief or relief or both at once. But you’re already in. The poem has you by the collar before you’ve taken a breath.

That line is from my own poem, “Grudge Notes to the Grave.” I want to use it today, not to show off, but to show you exactly how a strong opening works at the mechanical level. Because there’s nothing mysterious about it. It’s craft. And craft can be learned.

THE CRAFT LESSON: What a Strong Opening Actually Does

Think of your opening line as a door that’s already been kicked open when the reader arrives. They don’t knock. They don’t wait to be invited. They stumble through into the middle of something already in motion.

The weakest opening lines do one of two things. They either announce the poem’s subject matter like a newspaper headline (“Today I am thinking about loss”), or they stage-set in a way that delays the real poem by a stanza or two (“It was a grey morning in November when I first began to wonder...”). Both mistakes share the same root: they make the reader wait. And readers, especially poetry readers dipping into a newsletter, won’t wait.

A strong opening line does at least one of these four things, ideally two or three at once:

1. Creates immediate tension or a gap in information The reader needs to know something they don’t yet know. Not confusion…. tension. There’s a difference. Confusion makes readers give up. Tension makes them lean in.

“The house doesn’t smell like them anymore” creates a gap: Who are them? Why does it matter? The gap pulls you forward.

2. Drops you into a moment already underway Rather than beginning at the beginning, you begin in the middle. In medias res, the classicists called it, but don’t let the Latin put you off. It simply means: skip the warm-up. We don’t need to know what day it was or why you were in the house. We need to be in the house, now, with you.

3. Carries an emotional charge without naming the emotion The weakest version of that line would be: “I felt sad thinking about my dead parents.” That’s the emotion labelled and pinned to a board. The stronger version, the actual line, never says sad or grief or loss. It earns those feelings through the specific, sensory detail: the smell that isn’t there. The absence of a smell. That’s a strange, precise, true thing that carries far more weight than the named emotion ever could.

4. Establishes voice immediately By the end of the first line, your reader should already know something about who’s speaking, their register, their angle on the world, their particular frequency. “The house doesn’t smell like them anymore” is plain-spoken. No fancy vocabulary. No reaching for the poetic. That plainness is the voice, and that voice says: I’m going to be direct with you. I’m going to tell you something real.

THE POEM

Here’s the full opening of “Grudge Notes to the Grave,” so you can see how the opening line sets up everything that follows:

Grudge Notes to the Grave

The house doesn’t smell like them anymore
hasn’t for decades
just dust and whatever cheap candle I lit
to pretend otherwise
I walk past their old room
a museum of nothing
stripped bare by time and my own cowardice,
donating their clothes felt like betrayal
keeping them felt like a haunting

They died so long ago the calendar’s a liar
flipping years like it’s mocking me
and still I catch myself listening
for a cough, a laugh
something to prove the silence wrong
It’s not grief, not anymore
it’s a splinter lodged too deep to dig out
a dull throb I’ve named after them

I see them in the mirror sometimes
not their faces, those faded like bad Polaroids,
but the way my jaw clenches
the way my hands fidget with nothing
They left me their habits
useless heirlooms I can’t sell or burn
like how I hoard receipts
or curse at burnt toast as if it’s personal

Years pile up
a landfill of birthdays they missed
and I wonder if they’d recognize me now,
less their kid, more a stranger
with their ghosts stitched into my skin
The world kept spinning
rude as hell
shoving new wars and dumb trends in my face
while their absence sat quiet
a guest who never leaves

I talk to them in traffic jams
muttering at the dashboard
like it’s a Ouija board
asking why they didn’t warn me
life’s just a longer wait to join them
No answers, obviously,
they’re too busy being dead
to RSVP to my pity party

Still, I save a seat
just in case
People say time heals
but it’s a shitty contractor,
leaves cracks in the foundation
charges you for the privilege
I mourn them in fragments now
a recipe I can’t nail
a sweater I won’t wear
a joke I laugh at alone

They’re not gone, not really,
they’re the static on the radio
the shadow that ducks out of sight
I hate them for leaving
love them for staying
and bury them again every damn day
in the dirt of my own stubborn memory

(— Tom Kane)

THE BREAKDOWN

Let’s look at exactly what the opening line is doing, element by element.

“The house doesn’t smell like them anymore”

Notice it opens with The house - not My house, not A house. The definite article “the” assumes you already know which house. It drops you into a world where this house is so present it needs no explanation. That’s a quiet sleight of hand, but it works.

Doesn’t smell like them - the negative construction is doing heavy lifting here. We don’t talk about what the house smells like. We talk about what it no longer smells like. That’s more precise. That’s grief’s actual texture: not the presence of pain, but the presence of absence. The absent smell.

Anymore - that single word at the end carries the whole weight of time. It tells us this wasn’t always the case. There was a before. The poem hasn’t said so explicitly, but we feel it.

Then look at what follows in the first stanza: “a museum of nothing / stripped bare by time and my own cowardice.” The speaker’s cowardice - that word arrives like a small shock. This poem isn’t just about grief, it’s about complicity in grief. That complication is set up by the plainness of the opening. The first line earns our trust, and then the poem uses that trust to say harder things.

What the opening line refuses to do:

• It doesn’t say “I am grieving.” It doesn’t need to.

• It doesn’t describe the setting for three lines before getting to the point.

• It doesn’t reach for a poetic-sounding image when a plain one is more powerful.

• It doesn’t explain itself.

WEAK VS STRONG: A DIRECT COMPARISON

Let me show you what this poem’s opening could have looked like, written badly:

“I returned to the family home and felt overwhelmed by memories of my parents who passed away many years ago.”

Every single piece of information from the original is in that line. The home, the parents, the time passed, the emotion. And it’s completely dead on the page. Why? Because it explains instead of shows. It hands you the conclusion before you’ve had the experience.

The original line gives you one small, specific, sensory fact - and trusts you to feel everything else.

Now try this as a revision exercise in your head: take a poem you’ve written that opens with an explanation or an announcement. What’s the first image or action in that poem? What’s the first moment of genuine sensory detail? That’s probably where your poem actually begins.

THE EXERCISE

Here’s your practical challenge for this week.

Part One: Write five different opening lines for a poem you’ve been meaning to write - or a poem you’ve already written. Don’t write the rest of the poem. Just five possible first lines.

Now judge each one against these questions:

• Does it create a gap the reader needs to fill?

• Does it drop us into a moment already in progress?

• Does it carry an emotional charge without naming the emotion?

• Does it tell us something about who’s speaking?

The line that scores highest on those four is your opening.

Part Two: Take one of your existing poems and delete the first stanza. Read what’s left. Does the poem survive? Does it actually improve? You’ll be surprised how often the answer is yes, because so many poems have their real beginning buried in the second stanza, once the writer has warmed up.

The warm-up is for you. The reader doesn’t need to see it.

THE CLOSE

Next week, I’ll share one of my poems in full with a stanza-by-stanza annotation, so you can see how a poem is built from the inside out, not just from the opening line.

For now: what’s the first line of something you’re working on? Drop it in the comments. I’ll read every one.

Leave a comment

We live in a world of endless words. We are drowning in articles, updates, and notifications. In this deafening flood of information, the poet has a secret weapon: brevity.

The poet June Jordan gave us the perfect definition: poetry is writing the fewest words needed to achieve maximal impact. This isn’t about writing “short” poems; it’s about writing dense poems. It’s about making every single word do the work of ten.

A short, powerful poem is not a whisper; it’s a precisely calibrated explosion. It’s a key that unlocks a vast room in the reader’s mind. But how do we forge such a key? It requires us to move beyond simply writing and into the realm of architectural design. It requires compression.

The Misconception: The Empty Room

The common belief is that a short poem is an “easy” poem. We think that because it has fewer words, it requires less work. We write a few pretty lines, a nice image, and we stop. The result is often a poem that is short, yes, but also thin. It’s an empty room—neat and tidy, but forgettable.

The Truth: The Suitcase Principle

A great short poem is not an empty room; it is a perfectly packed suitcase. From the outside, it looks small and manageable. But when you open it, an entire world unfolds. Every single item inside has been chosen with ruthless precision. There is no filler. Nothing is there “just in case.”

The art of compression is the art of packing that suitcase. It’s about leveraging three key tools to make your words carry more than their own weight.

The Action: Three Tools for Poetic Compression

Here are three practical techniques to help you achieve maximal impact with minimal words.

1. The “Hero” Verb Transplant (The Engine)
As we’ve discussed before, weak verbs are the enemies of concision. A single, powerful verb can do the work of an entire descriptive phrase.

• The Audit: Look at your draft. Find a line like, “The old house was on the hill, looking very lonely.” (10 words).

• The Transplant: Ask yourself: What is the one word that captures the essence of that image?

• The Result: “The old house haunted the hill.” (5 words). The verb “haunted” does all the work of “lonely” and “old,” but with far more power and atmosphere.

2. The Metaphorical Leap (The Portal)
A metaphor is the ultimate compression tool. It takes two unrelated things and smashes them together, creating a spark of new meaning in the reader’s mind. It trusts the reader to do some of the work.

• The Audit: Find a line that is purely descriptive. “The winter sky was gray and empty.”

• The Leap: Instead of describing the sky, what can you compare it to that carries the emotional weight you’re after?

• The Result: “The sky was a locked, steel door.” or “The sky was a page erased too many times.” You’ve replaced a simple description with an entire universe of feeling.

3. The Power of the Unsaid (The Echo)
The most powerful tool in a short poem is often what you choose to leave out. A great short poem ends not with a neat conclusion, but with a resonant silence. It should feel like a bell that has just been struck, leaving a beautiful echo in the reader’s mind.

• The Audit: Look at the last two lines of your draft. Are you over-explaining? Are you telling the reader how to feel?

• The Cut: Challenge yourself to delete the final line or two. Does the poem become more powerful? Does it open up a question instead of providing a tidy answer?

• The Result: You create a space for the reader to enter the poem and complete the meaning for themselves. You’ve turned a statement into a conversation.

Writing a short poem isn’t about having less to say. It’s about trusting that a few, perfectly chosen words can say everything. It’s not about building a smaller house; it’s about handing the reader the key to a mansion.

Your Turn in the Workshop

Let’s practice compression. Take a long, descriptive sentence (your own or one you make up) and try to shrink it down to its most powerful, essential core using one of the techniques above. Share the “before” and “after” in the comments!

---

Thanks for reading Poetry Genius! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

If this guide gave you a new tool for your poet’s toolkit, a ❤️ is the kindest applause. To get a new craft lesson each week, subscribing for free is the best way to support our workshop.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

There are poets who write about grief as though it were a clean wound….something that bleeds and then closes. And then there are poets who understand that loss does not announce itself so tidily. It lingers in the air. It drifts like silken dust. It sits inside a ruined rose long after the petals have fallen. Today, I want to share three short poems that belong firmly in that second tradition: Bittersweet Memories, City of Broken Dreams, and Flowers May Pass - three quiet meditations on memory, desire, and the stubborn ache of things that have passed.

All 3 poems are available on audio - just click at end of article to listen

Bittersweet Memories: The Atmosphere of What Was

The opening poem begins not with a statement or a declaration, but with something almost environmental, a mood, a pressure in the air:

Ambience of what has been / still lingers in the air, / and slides along a froth of peppered mist / on icy dusk and rain-spun grass.

What is remarkable here is the physical texture of memory itself. The poet does not say “I remember” - instead, memory becomes atmospheric. It lingers. It slides. It has the quality of weather, of something you move through rather than something you choose to think about. The phrase “rain-spun grass” is precise and alive, catching that particular grey-green sensation of a cold dusk that so often accompanies melancholy.

The second stanza deepens this. Memory is compared to smoke….. “as tangible as wisps of smoke”….. and then immediately described as gone, “like the exhalation of the wind.” This is a beautiful paradox: memory feels real, feels physical, and yet it cannot be held. The “fluttering of untried wings / echoing a thousand times” carries a sense of potential unrealised, things that were never attempted, paths not taken, that nevertheless reverberate down the years.

The closing image is quietly devastating. The speaker listens under clouds “tinged vermilion,” and then offers this:

Tears have lost their salty grain / and more

The “and more” does extraordinary work. It is an incomplete sentence, deliberately, one suspects. The grief has gone past the point where it can be fully articulated. Even tears have become abstracted, refined away to something beyond expression. This is a poem that understands what it feels like when sorrow becomes too familiar to cry about.

City of Broken Dreams: The Street-Level View of Heartbreak

Where Bittersweet Memories gives us dusk and mist, the second poem drops us into something harsher, a cityscape rendered in the language of faded grandeur and broken promises. The poem moves in a single, breathless rush, almost unpunctuated in its urgency:

Jealousy dims the scarlet fading light, like silken dust upon a crackled hour.

The image of “silken dust upon a crackled hour” is extraordinary - time itself is depicted as something fragile and antique, like old lacquerware, and jealousy is the fine film of grit that dulls it. The poem’s emotional logic follows from this: if jealousy distorts the quality of time itself, then everything seen through it becomes warped, diminished.

The hourglass metaphor that follows, “It drifts across the hourglass of my soul and counts the sorrowed seconds, one by one” gives the poem its structural spine. Time is passing. Love is passing. The speaker walks streets where beggars sleep and painted women smile their professional smiles, and the poem refuses to romanticise any of it. This is the city as it is, not as postcards render it.

What anchors the poem is its final line, which achieves a kind of bitter wisdom:

Dying stars are no surprise to those who have walked these streets before.

There is experience here, hard-won, street-level experience. The speaker has moved past shock, past outrage, into something approaching stoicism. Stars die. Love fades. Dreams break. The ones who know this are the ones who have already seen it happen. It is a poem about becoming someone who is no longer surprised by loss, and the quiet grief of that transformation.

Flowers May Pass: The Ruined Rose and What Endures

The final poem is, in some ways, the most intimate of the three. It begins with a precise, tender memory:

I held this flower within my hand / in the harshness of winter-sleet, / and am grateful now / for that bitter, dappled day.

This is the retrospective gaze of someone who understands that the painful moments, the bitter ones, the ones that didn’t feel like gifts at the time, are often the ones that matter most. The gratitude here is earned. It comes after time, after distance, after the kind of perspective that only loss can bring.

The middle stanza complicates this beautifully. “Memories that drink from a sleepless night” is a striking image: it suggests that insomnia feeds memory, that the dark hours are when the past becomes most present. And yet these very memories have become unreachable: “those wistful moments / that now I don’t recall.” Even the memories of the memories are fading. “No white crosses will mark their passing” - there will be no monument, no ceremony. They will simply be gone.

And then comes the poem’s final, defiant turn:

A ruined rose endures when all else fails. / A fractured stem, a melting heart; / the difference is small.

This is the poem’s thesis. The ruined rose, the thing that should, by all logic, have perished, is what persists. The fractured and the broken have their own kind of durability. The closing lines pull back into a wider, more uncertain gaze:

I look upon this shattered bloom / and see a thousand arrows, / and wonder, / is this all

The missing question mark is telling. This is not really a question. It is something hovering between resignation and defiance….. a pause at the edge of meaning, where the speaker looks at everything that has been broken and asks, quietly, whether this is what life amounts to. The poem refuses to answer. That refusal is its greatest strength.

Three Poems, One Voice,

Taken together, these three poems form a kind of triptych three different angles on the same essential human experience: the persistence of the past in the present, the weight of what has been lost, and the strange endurance of broken things. The voice across all three is measured, image-driven, and deeply attentive to the physical world as a carrier of emotional truth. Mist and vermilion clouds, silken dust and dying stars, winter-sleet and shattered blooms, this is a poetic imagination that thinks in textures and atmospheres, that finds in the natural world an exact vocabulary for interior states.

They are poems worth sitting with, worth reading aloud. I hope you will.

Note. All poems copyright Tom Kane

The audio recordings of all three poems are available to listen to above. If these poems moved you, share them, and leave a comment below with your own response to the imagery.

Leave a comment

Most people who write poetry reach a plateau.

They write with genuine feeling. They work hard at it. But somewhere along the way the poems start to feel like each other, a little flat, a little familiar. The voice stops surprising even its owner.

This is not a crisis. It is a threshold. What separates poets who push past it from those who stay comfortable on the plateau is rarely talent. It is craft, and craft is learnable. Here are seven habits that consistently move poets from competent to compelling.

Start with observation, not feeling

Beginning poets often make the mistake of writing toward emotion directly. They describe loneliness. They explain grief. But the reader cannot feel your longing just because you have named it.

What works is the specific, surprising detail: the particular quality of winter light through a particular window, the exact sound a door makes when someone leaves for the last time. The goal is what the poet and critic Ezra Pound called the “luminous detail,” the single concrete image that carries more weight than a paragraph of abstraction. Train yourself to write what you actually see, not what you think you should feel about it. The emotion will arrive on its own, carried in the image.

Give the feeling a body

Once you have an emotion you want to work with, resist the temptation to simply name it. Instead, find its equivalent in the physical world: an object, a scene, a sequence of events that makes the reader feel what the character feels without being told to feel it.

The critic T.S. Eliot called this the “objective correlative.” Think of it as constructing a small machine that produces an emotion in the reader. The fog. The empty chair at the table. The unwashed cup. These are not decorative. They are the poem’s actual argument. When you find the right correlating image, you will know it because the poem suddenly stops explaining itself.

Cut everything that does not carry weight

The Imagists, a group of early twentieth-century poets including Pound, H.D., and Amy Lowell, reduced the whole art to one rule: use absolutely no word that does not contribute directly to the presentation. Not one.

This is worth taking seriously. Read a draft and ask of every single word: what is it doing? Not what is it describing, not what does it add in a general way, but what specific work is it performing right now. Words that merely fill rhythm, that hedge, that apologize, that repeat what the image already shows: cut them. The poem becomes denser, and density in poetry is almost always a virtue. You want the reader to feel the pressure of what is held inside every line.

Steal, then transform

Every serious poet has a list of poets they have studied so closely that the study changed how they write. This is not imitation in any shameful sense. It is apprenticeship.

Choose a poem or a poet whose work does something you wish you could do: Mark Doty’s way of moving from the particular to the cosmic, Louise Glück’s quiet devastation, George Saunders’s odd specificity. Then write a poem deliberately in that style. Copy the sentence structures, the line lengths, the tonal register. Do it consciously, even mechanically. You will find that in learning someone else’s moves, you begin to understand your own possibilities from the inside. The imitation teaches you the laws; your own material breaks them in interesting ways.

Try on another life

One of the fastest ways to free a poem from the trap of literal autobiography is to write through a persona, a character who is not you, or not entirely you.

This is not evasion. It is expansion. When you inhabit a persona, you must imagine what that person wants at the deepest level, what they are afraid to say, what they believe when no one is watching. This imaginative pressure often produces a truer poem than direct confession, because the mask gives you permission to say things you might otherwise protect. The dramatic monologue has a long history in English poetry precisely because it works: the speaker’s voice creates a frame that holds even the most charged material without letting it spill into sentimentality.

Revise like a sculptor

The first draft is raw material. Most poets understand this intellectually but still treat revision as correction rather than discovery. The distinction matters.

A sculptor working in wood removes material to find the form inside. Your poem is often already in your draft, but buried under the versions of itself that arrived first: the safer image, the explanatory clause, the ending you thought you needed. During revision, look specifically at verbs. Are they doing real work or just keeping the sentence standing? Look at line breaks. Each one is a decision about where the reader pauses and what they carry into the next line. Try removing the first stanza entirely and see if the poem begins to breathe. Often the real poem starts a stanza later than you thought.

Read it aloud. Seriously.

This is not a beginner’s tip. It is what distinguishes a poem that is technically accomplished from one that actually works on a listener. Poetry operates below the level of meaning, in rhythm and sound, and you cannot hear those qualities with your eyes.

The musicologist and poet called this the “auditory imagination”: the capacity to feel the emotional content of sound before you have decoded the meaning of the words. Your readers will experience your poem that way whether you intend it or not. So read every draft aloud and ask not just whether it is correct but whether it moves. Whether the rhythm supports or undercuts the sense. Whether the sounds accumulate into something. The ear knows things the eye misses.

None of this is a formula. Poetry resists formulas on principle. But craft is repeatable, and the habit of looking hard, cutting ruthlessly, learning from the best, and reading what you make aloud: this is how good poems are built.

The plateau is not the ceiling. It is just the last comfortable place before the work gets interesting.

Leave a comment

Nobody cares about your Tuesday. That sounds harsh, but here’s what I mean: nobody cares about your Tuesday just because it was yours. They care about your Tuesday because something in it helps them understand their own Wednesday, their own decade of Wednesdays, their own particular way of moving through the world. The magic of personal poetry isn’t in the personal, it’s in the transformation of the personal into something that can live in someone else’s body.

This is the paradox every poet grapples with: the more specific you get about your own experience, the more universal your poem becomes. But only if you know how to build the bridge between your story and their feelings. Otherwise, you’re just writing expensive diary entries.

Find the Skeleton Key Emotion

Every personal poem that connects with readers has a skeleton key emotion at its center, a feeling so fundamental that it unlocks recognition in almost anyone who encounters it. The trick is learning to identify that key emotion in your own experience, even when it’s buried under layers of circumstance.

Let’s say you’re writing about the day your father taught you to drive. The surface story is entirely yours - your father, your car, your particular brand of teenage terror. But the skeleton key emotion might be the moment when you realized your parent was mortal, fallible, trusting you with something dangerous. That moment of recognition? That’s not just yours. That belongs to anyone who’s ever watched a parent age, anyone who’s been given responsibility they weren’t sure they could handle.

Maya Angelou understood this perfectly. “On the Pulse of Morning” isn’t just about being a Black woman in America, it’s about the universal human experience of standing at the edge of possibility, of being called to witness and participate in history. The specificity of her experience becomes the doorway through which readers enter their own recognition.

When you’re drafting personal work, ask yourself: What’s the emotion underneath the story? What’s the human experience that’s so fundamental it transcends the particular circumstances that triggered it in your life?

The Art of Strategic Detail

Here’s where most personal poetry goes wrong: it tries to tell the whole story. Every detail feels important because it actually happened, because it’s part of the complete picture of what you lived through. But poetry isn’t journalism. You’re not trying to document what happened, you’re trying to recreate what it felt like to have it happen.

The most powerful personal poems are built on carefully chosen details that suggest the larger story without exhaustively recounting it. Think of each detail as a window: it should let light into the whole house, not just show you one room.

Look at Sharon Olds’s “The One Girl at the Boys’ Party.” She doesn’t tell us everything about this girl’s life, her family dynamics, her educational background. Instead, she gives us the girl’s relationship to mathematics, her body among the boys’ bodies, the way she experiences her own difference. Those selected details open up entire worlds of recognition for readers who’ve been the only girl, the only boy, the only anyone in a space that wasn’t built for them.

When you’re revising personal work, audit your details ruthlessly. Ask each one: Does this help readers feel what I felt, or does it just help them know what happened to me? Keep the ones that illuminate; cut the ones that merely document.

Metaphor as Bridge Builder

Metaphor is the supreme bridge-building tool in personal poetry. It’s how you take something entirely specific to your experience and connect it to something readers can hold in their own understanding. But the metaphors that work best aren’t decorative, they’re structural. They don’t just make your poem prettier; they make it accessible.

Li-Young Lee does this beautifully in “Eating Alone.” The act of eating alone isn’t just literal - it becomes a metaphor for grief, for the way loss changes the most ordinary experiences. The specific image of eating becomes a way for readers to understand what it feels like when someone important is no longer there to share life’s small rituals.

The key is finding metaphors that feel both surprising and inevitable. Surprising because they help readers see your experience in a new way; inevitable because once you’ve made the connection, it feels absolutely right.

The Archetypal Personal

Every individual story contains archetypal elements, patterns that repeat across cultures and centuries because they’re woven into the fabric of human experience. The more you can identify and work with these archetypal patterns, the more your personal story will resonate with readers who’ve never lived your particular version of it.

The story of leaving home. The moment of recognizing a parent’s mortality. The first encounter with real loss. The experience of falling in love, of being betrayed, of discovering your own strength. These aren’t just your stories, they’re everybody’s stories, wearing the particular clothes of your experience.

Robert Frost knew this. “The Road Not Taken” works not because readers care about Frost’s specific walk in the woods, but because the image of choosing between paths is archetypal, it represents every significant choice we make or don’t make. The personal becomes universal through its connection to patterns that transcend individual experience.

Confessional vs. Self-Indulgent

There’s a crucial difference between confessional poetry that connects and self-indulgent poetry that alienates, and it comes down to intention. Confessional poetry uses personal revelation in service of larger understanding. Self-indulgent poetry uses personal revelation in service of personal catharsis, with little regard for whether that catharsis translates to anyone else.

The test is simple: After reading your poem, does a reader understand something new about human experience, or do they just know more about your personal drama? Anne Sexton’s confessional work, at its best, transforms intensely personal material into insights about mental illness, gender, family dynamics, and survival that extend far beyond her individual experience.

This doesn’t mean you can’t write for personal catharsis - writing is always partly about that. But if you want your personal poetry to connect with readers, it needs to offer something beyond your own emotional relief.

Creating an Inhabitable “I”

The most successful personal poems create an “I” that readers can step into, even temporarily. This isn’t about making yourself generic, it’s about creating a version of yourself on the page that has enough space for other people’s experience to fit inside it.

This often means softening the edges of your personality, not to make yourself smaller, but to make yourself more accessible. The “I” in your poem doesn’t need to include every quirk, every personal opinion, every detail that makes you specifically you. It just needs to include the parts of you that connect to universal human experience.

Frank O’Hara mastered this technique. His poems feel incredibly personal and specific, but the “I” in them is open enough that readers can imaginatively inhabit his experience of walking through New York, of being in love, of encountering art. We become temporary versions of Frank O’Hara when we read his work.

The Vulnerability Paradox

Here’s something that might surprise you: the most universal personal poems are often the ones that reveal the most vulnerable aspects of your experience. Vulnerability creates connection because it’s the thing we all share and the thing we’re all afraid to admit. When you’re brave enough to write about your own vulnerability, you give readers permission to recognize their own.

But vulnerability in poetry isn’t just about confession, it’s about precision. It’s not enough to say “I was afraid” or “I felt ashamed.” You need to find the exact shape of your fear, the particular texture of your shame, the specific way those emotions lived in your body and your thoughts.

This precision - this willingness to get vulnerable not just emotionally but artistically - is what transforms personal experience into shared human understanding.

The Translation Test

Here’s a practical exercise for testing whether your personal poems are connecting universally: Imagine translating your poem into another language for readers who know nothing about your cultural context, your personal history, or the specific circumstances you’re writing about. Would the emotional core of the poem still be accessible?

If the answer is yes, you’ve probably succeeded in making your story resonate beyond your own experience. If the answer is no, you might need to work on building stronger bridges between your particular circumstances and universal human feelings.

The Gift of Your Experience

Remember: the goal isn’t to make your experience less personal or less specific. The goal is to make it more available, more generous, more capable of creating recognition in readers who come to it with their own stories. Your particular way of being human is valuable precisely because it’s yours. but its value multiplies when it helps others understand their own particular way of being human.

The best personal poetry doesn’t just express your experience - it expands the reader’s capacity for experience. It doesn’t just tell your story - it helps readers understand their own story more deeply, That’s the real magic: not just making your story universal, but making the universal story more personal, more immediate, more available to anyone who needs it.

Your story matters because it’s yours. But it becomes poetry when it helps other people’s stories matter too.

Leave a comment

Somewhere between school and adulthood, most people received the same unspoken instruction about poetry.

It is serious. It is difficult. It requires a level of cultural preparation you probably lack. It lives in a register slightly above the one you normally operate in, and the appropriate response to it is a kind of reverent, slightly uncomfortable silence.

This instruction is wrong. It has done enormous damage. And the poets most worth reading spent their entire careers cheerfully ignoring it.

Billy Collins opens a poem by imagining himself hitting a piñata shaped like the word love. He writes about the sullen art of moving furniture. About the mouse he found behind the refrigerator. About how all his students want to tie a poem to a chair and beat a confession out of it.

These poems are funny. They are also, by the time they have finished with you, doing something else entirely - something that would not have been possible if they had announced their intentions at the door.

That is not a coincidence. That is the technique.

What wit actually does in a poem

Humour in poetry is not decoration. It is not the poet relaxing before getting to the real business.

It is a mechanism for disarming the reader’s defences.

When a poem opens with something surprising or wry, the reader’s guard drops. They lean forward. They are enjoying themselves. They are not braced for impact.

And then the poem does the thing it was always going to do - turns a corner, drops a register, lands something quiet and true - and it gets there unimpeded, because the reader never saw it coming.

Collins describes his method somewhere as wanting to start in a very particular, almost trivial place and then slowly open up to the philosophical or the universal. The wit is the very particular place. The turn is where the poem earns it.

The poems that open with solemnity and intention tend to produce solemnity and intention. The reader knows what is coming and prepares accordingly. The experience is more duty than discovery.

The funny poem is doing something structurally more interesting. It is building a trapdoor.

The poets who understood this

Collins is the obvious example, but he is not alone.

Philip Larkin was frequently hilarious and frequently devastating, sometimes in the same stanza, sometimes in the same line. His poem about his parents - the one I cannot quote here but which you will find immediately if you search for it, and which contains one of the most perfectly calibrated obscenities in the English language -- is a comedy that becomes, in its final tercet, something you carry with you for years.

Wendy Cope writes with a precision of wit that is often mistaken for lightness. It is not lightness. It is accuracy delivered without flinching, and the accuracy is what stings.

Even Seamus Heaney - not a poet typically associated with comedy - could be quietly, precisely funny in a way that made the weight of his serious work easier to carry.

The tradition of the witty poem is not a minor one. It is, arguably, the tradition in which the most technically accomplished poetry has been written - because wit requires compression, precision, and timing, and those are the same requirements that make any poem good.

The thing most beginners get wrong

When people decide to write a funny poem, they write a funny poem.

They decide in advance that it will be comic. They reach for obvious jokes. They sacrifice surprise for the laugh they can already see coming.

This produces something that reads like a greeting card verse - serviceable, predictable, dead on arrival.

The wit in a good poem is not planned in advance. It is discovered in the process of writing with precision and honesty. When you describe something exactly as it is -- with complete fidelity to its specific, slightly absurd reality - the humour emerges naturally, because reality is frequently funnier than anything you would invent.

The trapdoor is not built first and then disguised. It appears when the writing is honest enough.

This week’s audio

Below is a recording of one of my own poems.

It does not announce its intentions. I will say only that it begins in a particular place - the west Highlands of Scotland, where I spent a significant portion of my youth - and ends somewhere I did not entirely expect when I started writing it.

Whether it is funny or serious is, I think, a question with a more interesting answer than either option alone.

[Audio embed: Tom Kane reads Winter Light on Rannoch Moor]

Listen once without analysing. Then, if you are so inclined, listen again and notice where the tone shifts. That shift is the whole lesson.

For paid subscribers: the workshop

Read more

There is a mug in your kitchen that you have not really looked at in years.

You know it is there. You reach for it without thinking. You have probably poured somewhere between two and five thousand cups from it without once considering its specific weight in your hand, the particular way the handle meets the body, or why, out of all the mugs you own, this is the one you always reach for first.

That mug is a poem waiting to happen.

Billy Collins wrote an entire poem about putting his dog’s leash on a hook. He wrote one about the margins of a student’s notebook. About forgetting the names of things. About standing at a window watching snow. Not a significant snowfall. Just snow.

The subjects are almost insultingly ordinary. That is precisely the point.

The mistake most people make when they decide to write poetry

They wait for a significant subject.

A death. A birth. A moment of obvious beauty - a sunset of sufficient drama, a landscape grand enough to justify the effort of metaphor.

And sometimes those subjects produce good poems. But more often they produce poems that are straining under the weight of their own importance, poems where the emotion has been announced rather than discovered, where the writer has decided in advance what the poem should feel like and has built accordingly.

The ordinary subject does something different. It ambushes you.

You start writing about a mug and you end up somewhere you didn’t expect. The mug becomes a marriage. The habit of reaching for it becomes a meditation on what comfort actually is. The question of why this mug and not another becomes a question about loyalty and small devotions and all the ways we are attached to things without ever having decided to be.

You did not plan any of that. The poem found it.

Where the poems actually live

I have been writing poetry for long enough to know where the good material hides.

It is not in the grand occasions. Those tend to produce the poems you expected to write.

It is in the gap between expectation and what actually happened. The grandchild who said the strange, exact thing that nobody but a five-year-old would say. The walk you have taken a hundred times that looked different on one particular morning without your being able to explain why. The conversation that ended and left you with something you couldn’t quite name.

It is in the objects that have outlasted the occasions that gave them meaning. The card in a drawer. The photograph of someone mid-laugh who didn’t know the camera was there. The piece of furniture you keep moving from house to house not because it is beautiful but because getting rid of it would require an explanation you don’t have the words for yet.

It is, very often, in the routine. The thing you do every morning before you are properly awake. The walk to the same place. The habit that has become so habitual you have stopped seeing it entirely.

That invisibility is not a problem. It is an invitation.

The practical version: one exercise, five minutes

Here is what I suggest you try this week.

Pick something in your immediate environment that you stopped noticing years ago. The mug. A chair. A view from a window. A walk you do on autopilot. A small habit shared with someone you love.

Look at it for thirty seconds as if you have never seen it before. Not metaphorically. Actually look at it. The specific colour. The exact weight or shape. Whether it is worn in any particular place and what that wearing tells you about how it has been used.

Then write five lines. Not a poem. Just five lines. They do not need to rhyme. They do not need to be good. They need only to be specific - to describe this particular thing, not the category it belongs to.

Specific is the whole game in poetry. Not a mug. This mug. Not a marriage. This marriage. Not memory. This exact thing you remember, in this specific detail, with this particular quality of light.

If something unexpected appears in those five lines - a feeling you weren’t planning on, a connection you didn’t see coming, a question you didn’t know you were sitting with - follow it. That is the poem beginning to tell you what it is about.

This week’s audio: a poem of mine

The post this week comes with something a little different.

I have recorded one of my own poems - a personal one, about the kind of ordinary moment that turns out, on examination, to be something else entirely. Family. Memory. The things that accumulate quietly over a long time and only reveal their weight when you stop and look directly at them.

It is not a grand poem. It is the kind of poem I am describing in this post: small subject, unexpected arrival.

You can listen below.

Tom Kane reads Firelight Memories.

If it prompts you to try the five-line exercise above, I would genuinely like to know what you find. Reply to this post. That is what the reply button is for.

One line from Collins before you go

From his poem Introduction to Poetry, which every person who has ever been told to analyse a poem in school should read immediately:

He describes wanting people to approach a poem the way you would press your ear to a hive - to listen for the hum of it before trying to extract the honey.

That image has stayed with me for years. It is, itself, a demonstration of exactly what I am talking about. An ordinary object. An unexpected door.

The poem was already there. He just looked long enough to find it.

Check out this visual presentation:

Poetry In The Ordinary Presentation

5.88MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Poetry Genius publishes on Thursdays. If you know someone who thinks poetry is not for them, this post was written with exactly that person in mind. Forward it on.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now